Uchida 2019.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling	Inclusion/exclusion criteria Inclusion criteria: primary glioblastoma. Tested by FISH Prior testing Presumably histopathological diagnosis, although this was not explicitly reported.
Patient characteristics and setting	Number of participants/tumours with results for 1p/19q status by ≥ 2 DNA‐based tests: 141 Country: Japan Population source and setting: The Department of Neurosurgery, University of Kagoshima. 2009–2016 Age: NR Gender: NR Karnofsky performance status: NR First diagnosis/recurrent disease: unclear. Primary GBM
Index tests	2 tests: FISH (variant 1) and FISH (variant 2) FISH (variant 1) Tumour sample type: NR Region(s) analysed: 1p36/1q25, 19p13/19q13 (Vysis LSI DNA probes) Cut‐off: 20%. Criteria for judging whether a deletion was present: signals of 1p or 19q < signals of 1q or 19p. FISH (variant 2) Tumour sample type: NR Region(s) analysed: 1p36/1q25, 19p13/19q13 (Vysis LSI DNA probes) Cut‐off: 20%. Criteria for judging whether a deletion was present: single signal of 1p or 19q and 2 signals of 1q or 19p.
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Target condition was absolute 1p/19q deletion. No tests used as reference standard in our analyses.
Flow and timing	This was 1 test analysed with 2 different cut‐offs.
Comparative
Notes	Conference abstract
Methodological quality
Item	Authors' judgement	Risk of bias	Applicability concerns
DOMAIN 1: Patient Selection
Was a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled?	Unclear
Was a case‐control design avoided?	Yes
Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions?	Unclear
Could the selection of patients have introduced bias?		Unclear risk
Are there concerns that the included patients and setting do not match the review question?			High
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (NanoString)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (aCGH)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (NGS)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (G‐banding)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (FISH (variant 4))
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (SNP array)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (PCR (with comparison to normal DNA))
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (PCR (without comparison to normal DNA))
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (CISH)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (MS)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (RFLP)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (PCR‐based LOH)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (NGS or aCGH (or both))
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (Methylation array)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (FISH)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (FISH (variant 1))
If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified?	No
Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the other tests being compared?	Unclear
Could the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias?		High risk
Are there concerns that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question?			Low concern
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (FISH (variant 2))
If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified?	No
Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the other tests being compared?	Unclear
Could the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias?		High risk
Are there concerns that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question?			Low concern
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (FISH (variant 3))
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (Real‐time PCR)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (MLPA)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (CGH)
DOMAIN 3: Reference Standard
Is the reference standards likely to correctly classify the target condition?	No
Could the reference standard, its conduct, or its interpretation have introduced bias?		High risk
Are there concerns that the target condition as defined by the reference standard does not match the question?			Low concern
DOMAIN 4: Flow and Timing
Was there an appropriate interval between index test and reference standard?	Yes
Were all patients included in the analysis?	Unclear
Could the patient flow have introduced bias?		Unclear risk